Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Urban space and the social control of incivilities: perceptions of space influencing the regulation of anti-social behaviour

  • Published:
Crime, Law and Social Change Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Contemporary cities are increasingly governed through space. In this article, we examine how urban space and perceptions thereof can influence the social control in the area of incivilities. To this end, we first inspect the existing literature, in particular the socio-spatial studies that emphasise the importance of culture and values in the interaction with social control. Partly drawing on examples from our previous studies, we suggest that people’s perceptions of urban space (influenced by cultural symbols, social and media representations, aesthetics and other values) affect their perceptions of incivilities, while the latter often determine or at least importantly contribute to the shaping of the social control of incivilities. We further highlight the role of gentrification as a medium and a tool of social control. The paper concludes by discussing implications of this for the possible future, more integrated and interdisciplinary research on the social control of incivilities in the city.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. In Belgium, for example, incivilities are tackled with “municipal administrative sanctions” (gementelijke administratieve sancties); in Germany and Slovenia, they are mostly considered violations (Ordnungswidrigkeiten, prekrški), which form part of the criminal law, even though they are not criminal offences in the strict sense. Anti-social behaviour orders (ASBOs), massively used throughout England and Wales since 1999, before the new anti-social behaviour legislation of 2014 coming into force, were civil-law orders, when – if breached – gained a criminal law nature.

  2. The physical layout of bars and public spaces, including their opportunities to sit, stand and move, the availability of toilet facilities, the proximity of other people etc., have been found, for example, to influence drinkers’ experiences of drinking and drunkenness in night-time locations [31].

  3. The new symbolism of corporate/consumption infrastructures is also addressed in the work of urban sociologists [34, 35] and of cultural geographers [36,37,38], to which cultural criminologists often refer in their writings.

  4. For example, in Rome, the area around the House of Representatives (Palazzo Montecitorio) combines very old historical buildings (including the Pantheon and many other Ancient Roman monuments, along with Baroque churches and statues) with shopping malls (mainly, in Corso Como and via di Campo Marzio), expensive boutiques and design shops.

  5. http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/perception.html. That there is a frequent mismatch between perceptions of anti-social behaviour and an objective measure thereof has also been observed by researchers who drafted the 2010 Home Office Research Report 34 (see [44]).

  6. Félonneau used a sample of 150 students who had lived in the city of Bordeaux for at least 3 years. A later study similarly found that people living in Paris are less annoyed by environmental nuisance (physical incivilities), the use of cars and other (more social) incivilities, than people living in other French provincial cities, possibly due to a more positive social representation of the urban environment [47].

  7. Social psychologists remind us that while individual experience and perceptions are not to be dismissed, we have to remember that “nearly everything which a person knows they have learnt from another, either through their accounts, or through the language which is acquired, or the objects which are used”. The roots of our knowledge are “submerged in the way of life and collective practices in which everyone participates” and it is this mutual interaction in which significant knowledge and beliefs originate ([50]: 216 (all quotes)).

  8. Dixon et al. [51] claim that incivilities are the product of the moral rules that apply to a specific urban space (or of the social construction of public space).

  9. The idea that landscapes are to be read through their culture and history has been traced back to Carl Sauer [53] and his Berkeley School of cultural geography (for a review of the latter see Jackson [54] and Hubbard [32]). That various symbols are conveyed through, among others, urban architectures as a result of the specific city history and culture has been further elaborated by urban symbolic ecology (e.g. [55]).

  10. An abandoned car filled with plants, to use Millie’s [57] example, may be considered and celebrated as an art installation in one city area and a traffic violation in other commercial urban districts.

  11. As recently argued by Crocitti and Selmini [61], most of the Italian municipalities, which have enacted administrative orders against uncivil behaviour, have penalised street prostitution. Many of these orders, moreover, have addressed the behaviour and especially the “appearance” of street prostitutes (or the way they are dressed), which are considered “threats to urban safety and ‘public decency’, and a situation that creates a feeling of insecurity in citizens living or passing nearby” ([61]: 9).

  12. The selected nightlife locations were the Vlasmarkt and the Oude Beestenmarkt, in Ghent. In Trento, they were the area around the Santa Maria Maggiore Square and the one of via Roma, via delle Orfane and vicolo Colico.

  13. A “typical” gentrifier still comes from middle classes, although the term has seen some significant expansion in the last decade. While previously it was the young, single, childless professionals who tended to enjoy the city and were presented as the driving force of gentrification, it is now progressively also middle-class families raising children in the city who find living in the inner city a good way to combine “careerism and familism” ([66]: 2582) and, even more recently, the super-rich who drive further gentrification [67].

  14. In a recent study by eCrime [72], researchers studying residents’ perceptions of urban (physical and social) disorder in different areas of Trento and comparing them with objective indicators (as recorded by law enforcers) found that while in most neighbourhoods they tended to match, in some other neighbourhoods (specifically, in the neighbourhoods of Meano and Sardagna) residents’ perceptions of disorder where higher than expected on the basis of the reported objective levels of disorder.

  15. Innes [43] has underscored the importance of considering the specific cultural context of the community under study to enhance our understanding of the events that act as a signal of the risk of crime and disorder (as opposed to other events, which are not perceived as threats to the collective security).

  16. Support for gentrification policies by those with lower incomes for whom it would likely be more difficult to afford to live or continue living in new, gentrified areas may suggest a further, more psychological factor at play. Some research has shown, for example, that perceptions of disorder significantly affect residents’ self-esteem and that “impoverished and deteriorating surroundings are internalised and incorporated into an individual’s self-image” ([91]: 992). It may be that gentrification perceived as “beautifying” the city could, conversely, increase the urbanite’s self-worth and therefore receive his or her support.

  17. It was, however, first built in 1882 for the purposes of Austro-Hungarian Army. For more on the history and development of Metelkova City see Retina [93].

  18. In the recent case of Garib v. The Netherlands (judgment of 23 February 2016), for example, the European Court of Human Rights (concretely, its Third Section) found no violation of the applicant’s freedom to choose one’s residence (Article 2 Protocol no. 4) in the case of the city of Rotterdam imposing a minimum income limit on those wishing to reside in certain inner-city areas (unless the minimum duration of residence requirement was met), which effectively prevented the applicant from residing in the area of Tarwewijk. Such gentrification measure, restricting the said freedom, was seen as serving the legitimate aim “to reverse the decline of impoverished inner-city areas and to improve quality of life generally” (§110). Even the two dissenting judges who have found the violation in the present case, however, considered city policies striving to improve impoverished areas, including “urban planning favouring more luxurious apartments”, as “unquestionably legitimate” as long as they are not linked to personal characteristics (§23).

  19. Millie’s attempt [95] is a noteworthy, yet rather lonely example. His focus groups among the minority and marginalised Londoners revealed that all social groups can be anti-social, but that the anti-social behaviour of some of them remains less visible or less acknowledged, for example, the abuse the homeless receive from “the suits”.

References

  1. Garland, D. (2001). The culture of control: Crime and social order in contemporary society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Peršak, N. (2016a). The rude, the bad and the ugly: penalising incivilities in Europe. In N. Peršak (Ed.), Regulation and social control of incivilities (pp. 1–10). London, New York: Routledge.

  3. Pleysier, S. (2015). Local governance of safety and the normalization of behavior. Crime, Law and Social Change, 64(4–5), 305–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Zedner, L. (2009). Security. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Peršak, N. (2007a). Criminalising harmful conduct: the harm principle, its limits and continental counterparts. New York: Springer.

  6. Peršak, N. (2014). Norms, harms and disorder at the border: the legitimacy of criminal law intervention through the lens of criminalisation theory. In N. Peršak (Ed.), Legitimacy and trust in criminal law, policy and justice: norms, procedures, outcomes (pp. 13–34). Farnham, Burlington: Ashgate.

  7. Simester, A. P., & von Hirsch, A. (2011). Crimes, harms and wrongs: On the principles of criminalisation. Oxford: Hart Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Wilson, J. Q., & Kelling, G. (1982). The police and neighborhood safety: broken windows. Atlantic Monthly, 127, 29–38.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Peršak, N. (ed.) (2016b). Regulation and social control of incivilities. London, New York: Routledge.

  10. Podoletz, L. (2016). Tackling homelessness through criminalisation: The case of Hungary. In N. Peršak (Ed.), Regulation and social control of incivilities (pp. 75–91). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Beckett, K., & Herbert, S. (2009). Banished: The new social control in urban America. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  12. Di Ronco, A. (2014). Regulating street prostitution as a public nuisance in the “culture of consumption”: a comparative analysis between Birmingham, Brussels and Milan. In N. Peršak & G. Vermeulen (Eds.), Reframing prostitution: from discourse to description, from moralisation to normalisation? (pp. 145–171). Maklu: Antwerp.

  13. Di Ronco, A. (2016). Public drunkenness as a nuisance in Ghent (Belgium) and Trento (Italy). Crime, Law & Social Change, 66(1), 59–81.

  14. Peršak, N. (2007b). Representations of the anti-social (M.Phil. thesis in social psychology). Cambridge: University of Cambridge, Faculty of Social and Political Sciences.

  15. Peršak, N. (2016c). Media representations of incivilities in the British and Flemish press. In N. Peršak (Ed.), Regulation and social control of incivilities (pp. 125–145). London, New York: Routledge.

  16. Engle Merry, S. (2004). Spatial governmentality and the new urban social order: Controlling gender violence through law. In E. McLaughlin, J. Muncie, & G. Hughes (Eds.), Criminological perspectives: Essential readings (second ed., pp. 467–484). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Bottoms, A. (2012). Developing socio-spatial criminology. In M. Maguire, R. Morgan, & R. Reiner (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of criminology (fifth ed., pp. 450–489). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Hayward, K. (2004). City limits: Crime, consumer culture and the urban experience. London: GlassHouse Press.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Hayward, K., & Hobbs, D. (2007). Beyond the binge in “booze Britain”: market-led liminalization and the spectacle of binge drinking. The British Journal of Sociology, 58(3), 437–456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Measham, F. (2004). Play space: historical and socio-cultural reflections on drugs, licensed leisure locations, commercialisation and control. International Journal of Drug Policy, 15(5), 337–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Measham, F., & Brain, K. (2005). “Binge” drinking, British alcohol policy and the new culture of intoxication. Crime, Media Culture, 1(3), 262–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Coleman, R. (2005). Surveillance in the city: primary definition and urban spatial order. Crime, Media, Culture, 1(2), 131–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Hayward, K., & Yar, M. (2006). The “chav” phenomenon: consumption, media and the construction of a new underclass. Crime, Media, Culture, 2(1), 9–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Martin, G. (2009). Subculture, style, chavs and consumer capitalism: towards a critical cultural criminology of youth. Crime, Media Culture, 5(2), 123–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Ferrell, J. (1995). Crimes of style: Urban graffiti and the politics of criminality. In J. Ferrell & C. R. Sanders (Eds.), Cultural criminology (pp. 169–189). Boston: Northeastern University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Ferrell, J. (1997). Youth, crime, and cultural space. Social Justice, 24(4), 21–38.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Ling, S., & Bracey, M. (1995). Squaring the one percent: Biker style and the selling of cultural resistance. In J. Ferrell & C. R. Sanders (Eds.), Cultural criminology (pp. 235–276). Boston: Northeastern University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Miller, J. A. (1995). Struggles over the symbolic: Gang style and the meaning of social control. In J. Ferrell & C. R. Sanders (Eds.), Cultural criminology (pp. 213–234). Boston: Northeastern University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Jayne, M., & Valentine, G. (2016). Alcohol-related violence and disorder: new critical perspectives. Progress in Human Geography, 40(1), 67–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Jayne, M., Valentine, G., & Holloway, S. L. (2008). Fluid boundaries – British binge drinking and European civility: alcohol and the production and consumption of public space. Space and Polity, 12(1), 81–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Jayne, M., Valentine, G., & Holloway, S. L. (2012). What use are units? Critical geographies of alcohol policy. Antipode, 44(3), 828–846.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Hubbard, P. (2006). City. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Hall, S., Simon, W., & Craig, A. (2008). Criminal identities and consumer culture: crime, exclusion and the new culture of narcissm. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Gottdiener, M. (2005). Looking at themed environments. In J. Lin & C. Mele (Eds.), The urban sociology: A reader (pp. 302–307). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Zukin, S. (2005). Whose culture? Whose city? In J. Lin & C. Mele (Eds.), The urban sociology: A reader (pp. 281–289). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Anderson, B., & Harrison, P. (2010). Taking-place: Non-representational theories and geography. Farnham: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Firey, W. (2005). Sentiment and symbolism as ecological variables. In J. Lin & C. Mele (Eds.), The urban sociology: A reader (pp. 89–96). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Thrift, N. (1996). Spatial formations. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Goffman, E. (1971). Relations in public. London: Allen Lane.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Sampson, R. J., & Raudenbush, S. W. (2004). Seeing disorder: neighborhood stigma and the social construction of “broken windows”. Social Psychology Quarterly, 67(4), 319–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Hope, T., & Hough, M. (1988). Area, crime and incivility: A profile from the British crime survey. In T. Hope & M. Shaw (Eds.), Communities and crime reduction (pp. 30–47). London: HMSO.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Young, J. (1999). The exclusive society. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Innes, M. (2014). Signal crimes. Social reactions to crime, disorder and control. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  44. Mackenzie, S., Bannister, J., Flint, J., Millie, A., & Fleetwood, J. (2010). Research report 34, key implications: The drivers of perceptions of anti-social behaviour. London: Home Office.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Schacter, D. L., Gilbert, D. T., Wegner, D. M., & Nock, M. K. (2014). Psychology. New York: Worth Publishers.

  46. Félonneau, M.-L. (2004). Love and loathing of the city: urbanophilia and urbanophobia, topological identity and perceived incivilities. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24(1), 43–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Robin, M., Matheau-Police, A., & Couty, C. (2007). Development of a scale of perceived environmental annoyances in urban settings. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27(1), 55–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Kapardis, A. (2005). Psychology and law: A critical introduction (second ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Clifford, B. R., & Bull, R. (1978). The psychology of person identification. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Flick, U. (1998). The psychology of the social. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Dixon, J., Levine, M., & McAuley, R. (2006). Locating impropriety: street drinking, moral order, and the ideological dilemma of public space. Political Psychology, 27(2), 187–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Wirth-Nesher, H. (2001). Impartial maps: Reading and writing cities. In R. Paddison (Ed.), Handbook of urban studies (pp. 52–66). London: Sage.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  53. Sauer, C. O. (1925). The morphology of landscape. University of California Publications in Geography, 2(2), 19–53.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Jackson, P. (1989). Maps of meaning: An introduction to cultural geography. London: Unwin Hyman.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  55. Nas, P. J. M. (2011). Cities full of symbols: A theory of urban space and culture. Leiden: Leiden University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  56. Schut, M., Nas, P. J. M., & Hettige, S. T. (2011). Emotion in the symbolic spectrum of Colombo, Sri Lanka. In P. J. M. Nas (Ed.), Cities full of symbols: A theory of urban space and culture (pp. 27–54). Leiden: Leiden University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Millie, A. (2016). Urban interventionism as a challenge to aesthetic order: towards an aesthetic criminology. Crime, Media, Culture. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741659016631609.

  58. Peršak, N. (2015). Criminalising urban marginality: homelessness, law, and defensive architecture. Paper presented at the 15th Annual conference of the European Society of Criminology, Porto, Portugal, 4 Sept 2015.

  59. Davis, M. (1990). City of quartz: Excavating the future in Los Angeles. London: Verso.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Davis, M. (1998). Ecology of fear: Los Angeles and the imagination of disaster. New York: Metropolitan Books.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Crocitti, S., & Selmini, R. (2016). Controlling immigrants: the latent function of Italian administrative orders. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10610-016-9311-4.

  62. Marceddu, D. (2016). Street art, il giudice su condanna AliCè per imbrattamento: “Il valore dell’arte non è un parametro”. Il Fatto Quotidiano, 26 February (Online). http://www.ilfattoquotidiano.it/2016/02/26/street-art-il-giudice-su-condanna-alice-per-imbrattamento-il-valore-dellarte-non-e-un-parametro/2499343/. Accessed 4 July 2016.

  63. Bridge, G. (2001). Estate agents as interpreters of economic and cultural capital: the gentrification premium in the Sydney housing market. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 25(1), 87–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Bridge, G. (2006). It’s not just a question of taste: gentrification, the neighbourhood, and cultural capital. Environment and Planning A, 38(10), 1965–1978.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Featherstone, M. (2007). Consumer culture and postmodernism. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Karsten, L. (2003). Family gentrifiers: challenging the city as a place simultaneously to build a career and to raise children. Urban Studies, 40(12), 2573–2584.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Doucet, B. (2014a). A process of change and a changing process: introduction to the special issue on contemporary gentrification. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, 105(2), 125–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Corriere della Sera (2016). Comunali, il confronto tra i candidati sindaco su economia, cultura, decoro e nuovi progetti. 10. Qual’è la priorità per il decoro? http://roma.corriere.it/politica/cards/comunali-confronto-candidati-sindaco-problemi-roma/qual-priorita-il-decoro.shtml. Accessed 4 July 2016.

  69. Globalist (2014). Ordinanza choc di Tosi: a Verona è vietato distribuire pasti ai senza tetto. http://www.globalist.it/Detail_News_Display?ID=57311&typeb=0&ordinanza-choc-di-tosi-a-verona-e-vietato-distribuire-pasti-ai-senza-tetto. Accessed 4 July 2016.

  70. Damiaans, R (2009). Hondenpoep is niet alleen een bron van ergernis, het is ook veel schadelijker dan gedacht. Het Belang van Limburg, p. 6.

  71. Millie, A. (2008). Anti-social behaviour, behavioural expectations and an urban aesthetic. British Journal of Criminology, 48(3), 379–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. eCrime (2016). eSecurity. Indagine sulla sicurezza oggettiva e soggettiva nel comune di Trento: i quattro round a confronto. Vittimizzazione, senso di insicurezza e percezione del disordine urbano dei cittadini di Trento da ottobre 2012 a marzo 2015. http://www.esecurity.trento.it/images/pdf/Rapporto%20in%20sintesi_eSecurity_01.04.2016.pdf. Accessed 20 June 2016.

  73. Franzini, L., O’Brien Caughy, M., Murray Nettles, S., & O’Campo, P. (2008). Perceptions of disorder: contributions of neighborhood characteristics to subjective perceptions of disorder. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28(1), 83–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Heap, V. (2010). Understanding public perceptions of anti-social behaviour: problems and policy responses (Ph.D. thesis). Huddersfield: University of Huddersfield. 

  75. Lemieux, F. (2005). Qu’est-ce qu’une incivilité? Représentations et réactions des résidants francophones des logements sociaux de la ville de Montréal. Rapport présenté à La Commission du droit du Canada dans le cadre du projet: Qu’est-ce qu’un crime? http://publications.gc.ca/site/fra/9.635033/publication.html. Accessed 7 July 2016.

  76. Whitehead, C. M. E., Stockdale, J. E., & Razzu, G. (2003). The economic and social costs of anti-social behaviour. London: London School of Economics.

    Google Scholar 

  77. Atkinson, R., & Flint, J. (2003). Order born out of chaos? The capacity for informal social control in disempowered and ‘disorganised’ neighbourhoods. Policy & Politics, 32(3), 333–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Flint, J., Casey, R., Davidson, E., Pawson, H., & McCoulough, E. (2007). Tackling anti-social behaviour in Glasgow: An evaluation of policy and practice in the Glasgow Housing Association. Glasgow: Glasgow Housing Association.

    Google Scholar 

  79. Reiner, R. (2007). Media-made criminality: The representation of crime in the media. In M. Maguire, R. Morgan, & R. Reiner (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of criminology (pp. 376–416). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  80. Doucet, B. (2014b). The individual geographies of gentrification: between emancipation and conflict. Presentation to Dynamiques démographiques bruxelloises, 28 November 2014. http://demographie.be/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/20141128_DemogrBXL_09_BD.pdf. Accessed 12 June 2016.

  81. Bannister, J., Fyfe, N., & Kearns, A. (2006). Respectable or respectful? (In) civility and the city. Urban Studies, 43(5–6), 919–937.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Belina, B., & Helms, G. (2003). Zero tolerance for the industrial past and other threats: policing and urban entrepreneurialism in Britain and Germany. Urban Studies, 40(9), 1845–1867.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Jayne, M. (2000). Imag(in)ing a post-industrial potteries. In D. Bell & A. Haddour (Eds.), City visions (pp. 12–26). Harlow: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  84. Chatterton, P., & Hollands, R. (2003). Urban nightscapes: Youth cultures, pleasure spaces and corporate power. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  85. Hobbs, D., Hadfield, P., Lister, S., & Winlow, S. (2003). Bouncers: Violence and governance in the nighttime economy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  86. Hobbs, D., Hadfield, P., Lister, S., & Winlow, S. (2005). Violence and control in the night-time economy. European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, 13(1), 89–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Buntin, J. (2015). The myth of gentrification. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/01/the_gentrification_myth_it_s_rare_and_not_as_bad_for_the_poor_as_people.html. Accessed 20 Oct 2016.

  88. Cravatts, R. L. (2007). Gentrification is good for the poor and everyone else, American Thinker, 1 Aug 2007. http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2007/08/gentrification_is_good_for_the.html. Accessed 13 Nov 2016.

  89. Gillespie, P. (2015). How gentrification may benefit the poor, CNN money, 12 November 2015. http://money.cnn.com/2015/11/12/news/economy/gentrification-may-help-poor-people/. Accessed 20 Oct 2016.

  90. Hartley-Brewer, J. (2015). The cereal killer rioters need to be told why gentrification is good for them. The telegraph, 28 September 2015. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/society/11896408/Shut-up-and-eat-your-cereal-gentrification-is-good-for-you.html. Accessed 20 Oct 2016.

  91. Haney, T. J. (2007). “Broken windows” and self-esteem: subjective understandings of neighbourhood poverty and disorder. Social Science Research, 36(3), 968–994.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. Hilbrandt, H. (2016). Insurgent participation: consensus and contestation in planning the redevelopment of Berlin-Tempelhof airport. Urban Geography. https://doi.org/10.1080/02723638.2016.1168569.

  93. Retina (n.d.) 100 years of Metelkova. http://web.archive.org/web/20050122024652/http://www.ljudmila.org/retina/metelkova-katalo/100.html. Accessed 5 July 2016.

  94. Heap, V. (2009). “I don’t say that bored kids hanging about are bad, but they are scary!” exploring attitudinal factors that affect public perceptions of anti-social behaviour. Papers from the British Criminology Conference, 9, 71–91.

    Google Scholar 

  95. Millie, A. (2006). Anti-social behaviour: concerns of minority and marginalised Londoners. Internet Journal of Criminology (Online). https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/b93dd4_f2b6b6c7fc114d29995c4a0b504c377e.pdf. Accessed 2 Oct 2017.

  96. Mazerolle, L., Hurley, D., & Chamlin, M. (2002). Social behavior in public space: an analysis of behavioral adaptations to CCTV. Security Journal, 15(3), 59–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  97. Goold, B., Loader, I., & Thumala, A. (2013). The banality of security: the curious case of surveillance cameras. British Journal of Criminology, 53(6), 977–996.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Criminal-Law Ethics and Criminology, Ljubljana, Slovenia

    Nina Peršak

  2. Institute for Advanced Study, Central European University, Budapest, Hungary

    Nina Peršak

  3. Department of Sociology, University of Essex, Colchester, UK

    Anna Di Ronco

Authors
  1. Nina Peršak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Anna Di Ronco
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nina Peršak.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Peršak, N., Di Ronco, A. Urban space and the social control of incivilities: perceptions of space influencing the regulation of anti-social behaviour. Crime Law Soc Change 69, 329–347 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-017-9739-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-017-9739-6

Search

Navigation